RT @jaketapper CIA"No one at any level in CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are inaccurate. -Gen Petraus

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pet ... 57896.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.

In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.

Stu Levitan wrote:Bush ignored a CIA report that said Bin Laden determined to strike in USA soon, probably using planes. Then he started a war in Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist.

Stu is still outraged over Bush (who, by the way, "got" Saddam Hussein) having "started a war" in Libya (or rather, Iraq) that was authorized by Congress and the U.N. unlike Obama who led us from behind into war in Libya only to order forces to stand down when our embassy in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists.

Stu Levitan wrote:Obama got Bin Laden and has decimated al Qaeda, ended the war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan.

You sure about that? War in Iraq is over? War in Afghanistan is ending?

Stu Levitan wrote:Obviously, something went tragically wrong in Benghazi. But do you really want to debate national security and intelligence activities? Seriously?

Why? Would asking difficult questions about national security and intelligence activities be, what... unpatriotic? Do you know who said this, Stu?:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"

Stu Levitan wrote:Obviously, something went tragically wrong in Benghazi. But do you really want to debate national security and intelligence activities? Seriously?

Why? Would asking difficult questions about national security and intelligence activities be, what... unpatriotic? Do you know who said this, Stu?:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"

Meade, don't be disingenuous.

You know perfectly well that:

"do you really want to debate national security and intelligence activities? Seriously?"

does not translate to:"it's unpatriotic to ask difficult questions about national security and intelligence activities"

but rather to:

"you right-wingers have screwed up so badly on national security and intelligence activities during the 2000s that, if you had a modicum of self-awareness, you'd be embarrassed to be criticizing anyone else on those topics"

Now, you may or may not agree with that premise. But pretending you don't understand Stu's point just makes you look dumb.